So, I thought I’d go ahead and be politically active, and so I contacted my senator and asked that he support “Net Neutrality”. And, today I found a letter in my mailbox from Senator Brownback. Evidentally, senators don’t need stamps, they just have to sign in the corner where a stamp would be, and their content gets whisked to me. Cool.
So, the letter thanks me for my input, of course, and explains why government regulation of the free market would stifle creativity and innovation among the broadband access providers. The arguments I had heard for why these providers shouldn’t be allowed to charge content providers for quality service evidently do not appeal to all people. So, what do I believe? Are the proponents so-called “Net Neutrality” just anti-bussiness activists? Is S. Brownback being paid off? How do you find the truth when everything you hear is at least kinda true, and people you assume to be reasonable and intelligent are on both sides of the issue?
And Net Neutrality doesn’t really matter. Sure, if the pro-regulation people are right, before long the telecoms will decide what you see on the internet, by charging the people who have websites extra if they want their reader to be able to see their website in a timely manner. So it will be like having a couple dozen channels on TV, rather than millions of sites. And if the other side—that says just let the market, not the government, decide—if they are right, and don’t get their way, the internet will become stagnate, with telecoms not able to afford new fiber, and you will soon have slow service across the board. Those are the worse-case senarios.
But, there is an issue with not being able to tell which side of an issue is the correct one. And it is more important than freedom on the internet. This is matters of faith: what do you believe.
I am constanly exposed to different views on God, the universe and everything—the stuff that really matters. From people at work, to things I read, to people I talk to. And maybe this is a problem, but I try not to be the kind of person that is stereotyped as sticking with what they believe, even if it appears illogical, because that is how we’ve always believed, and we aren’t going to change now! Instead, I figure that if it is correct, it will be evident upon careful analysis. The problem is, rather than having a filter that just rejects everything that doesn’t line up exactly with my historic views, I have to logically evaluate everything I hear, to figure out if it is correct or not. And since I hear alot, this is hard.
And usually I am lazy. Too lazy to go check all the facts, so I absorb a view as “one way of looking at things that has some validity”. That’s a lot easier than picking it apart, and trying to decide if everything they claim as premises are actually true, to the extent that they are claiming, and if the interpretation they propose is actually logical. Instead, I grant the idea some credibility, which starts to cast reasonable doubt on my own beliefs. I have been led to believe that the burden of proof for my own beliefs lies with me—-that in order to be intelectually honest, I have to have logical, provable, testable evidence for what I believe before I can call for the same from someone who disagrees. But, with some of the most important things in life—”is there a God?”, “did life form by accident?”, “who says morality isn’t just a helpful ideal?”, “is this true, or do you just want it to be?”—on many issues, it is hard to get out your test tubes and multimeters and prove which view is correct.
Or maybe that’s another almost-truth that I’ve kinda given credance to.
So, maybe I just draw a line in the sand, and say, “This is what I believe, if I’m going to change, you’d better have some incontrovertible proof that this new view is correct!” But, wouldn’t that make me stick with things even if they aren’t true? I’ve been wrong before.
Maybe I need to do more in-depth analysis myself. I did a little research on Net Neutrality, and found out that it is more complex than it looks, and laws might not protect the consumer. We can’t make a law telling telecoms to “be nice”. This page seems to be a good view. But I’ve got no proof that what he says is true
